Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the

[birdog1960]

Man, the Pope is making one hell of a case for the libertarians who say "let's kick all of the Bible thumpers out of the R party and back to the Ds, where they belong. They are all just single issue conservative, Big Government everything else people."

 

Or, perhaps there's some nuance here that the usual suspects are missing? Anybody wanna take that bet?

 

Remember: Whether you like it or not, the Pope is the Pope for All, including Gene Frenkle. That's what the word Catholic means. That's the job description he signed up for, and that's how it's defined. He's merely doing the job.

 

The Pope: means he has to take everybody's views into account, and not just say he "respects" them, but actually engage them all.

 

 

good strategy. lose about 1/3 to 1/4th of the party (depending on the definition of bible thumper)and strengthen the most extreme and polarizing portion of the party.

 

no, he doesn't need to take anyones view into account. his mandate is to advance the agenda of Jesus, as he sees it.

[OCinBuffalo]

good strategy. lose about 1/3 to 1/4th of the party (depending on the definition of bible thumper)and strengthen the most extreme and polarizing portion of the party.

 

no, he doesn't need to take anyones view into account. his mandate is to advance the agenda of Jesus, as he sees it.

Didn't say anything about good. Did say: certainly isn't hurt by SOME of the Pope's comments.

 

Also...it's a joke. This argument is used by libertarians to counter the "you just wanna smoke weed" argument used by the Bible Thumpers.

 

But none of this matters. The final result is always the same: Both Libetarian and Bible Thumper will always agree that people like you are the biggest morons, represent the biggest danger to both personal liberty and religious liberty, and represent the destruction of the Republic. Given that, they will always unite against you.

 

That's because we don't like neofascists like you birdog, trying to substitute your values for common human principles, by pretending those principles don't exist, and instead, declaring yourself as the arbiter of morality. Or, by pretending that either Jesus or the Pope have an "agenda".

 

Jesus doesn't have an "agenda". Neither does the Pope, beyond caring for all people on earth, and attempting to help all people on earth, and being compassionate towards all people on earth.

 

Turdbots like you have the agenda = to marginalize most of Jesus's teachings that you don't like, and emphasize the ones you do.

 

Please refrain from pretending like you know something about Jesus or the Pope, or that your phony ass won't cherry pick Jesus to make whatever argument of convenience supports your current position.

[birdog1960]

Didn't say anything about good. Did say: certainly isn't hurt by SOME of the Pope's comments.

 

Also...it's a joke. This argument is used by libertarians to counter the "you just wanna smoke weed" argument used by the Bible Thumpers.

 

But none of this matters. The final result is always the same: Both Libetarian and Bible Thumper will always agree that people like you are the biggest morons, represent the biggest danger to both personal liberty and religious liberty, and represent the destruction of the Republic. Given that, they will always unite against you.

 

That's because we don't like neofascists like you birdog, trying to substitute your values for common human principles, by pretending those principles don't exist, and instead, declaring yourself as the arbiter of morality. Or, by pretending that either Jesus or the Pope have an "agenda".

 

Jesus doesn't have an "agenda". Neither does the Pope, beyond caring for all people on earth, and attempting to help all people on earth, and being compassionate towards all people on earth.

 

Turdbots like you have the agenda = to marginalize most of Jesus's teachings that you don't like, and emphasize the ones you do.

 

Please refrain from pretending like you know something about Jesus or the Pope, or that your phony ass won't cherry pick Jesus to make whatever argument of convenience supports your current position.

two words: "common good". Francis seems to like them.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes, but...what you support has nothing in common with the common good.

 

First, it is about dividing the country into factions, so that you can keep each group at war with each other, and thus maintain power over all, by deciding who gets what, when. And, if one of the factions gets out of line? You can pay off the others to excoriate them.

 

This is Feudalism, where the ruling class in DC gains, supported by their Wall Street, Union, and Silicon Valley vassals, while everybody else struggles.

 

There's nothing "common" about it in the slightest.

 

"Good" implies results. What results have your endlessly expanding programs gotten, really? Bad.

 

Yeah, yeah I know all about what you call The New Deal. When SSI dies, so will your deluded nostalgia.

 

Medicare is going to fail. Now, it's almost a certainty. "Thanks Obamacare!". That's because Medicare, as beneficial as it has been, was obsolete. Obamacare is just serving to kill it quicker. Same with Medicaid. Do you like $18 a visit? How about $18-36 that "pays" the nursing home per patient day. The operative words are "has been". What normally happens to "has beens"? Medicare was never built to last. It was built by the same idiots who oversaw Viet Nam. Medicaid is going create a crisis over the next 10 years, when it makes long term care, all flavors of business model, untenable.

 

EDIT: There is a doctor who has done some interesting things with this...but not on a scale that will cover the need, and it's 70/30 that it won't ever reach that scale. However, what he's doing is probably the best thing, and what he's doing means decentralizing the entire system. Put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it. However, unlike the clown parade you support? He's getting: results.

 

What happens when nobody is left to care for the elderly? Are we supposed to back to the 1800s?

 

So, nothing "common" and nothing "good".

 

Francis would kick you in the balls.

Edited November 30, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

two words: "common good". Francis seems to like them.

 

I have never seen any practical definition of "common good" that ultimately wasn't common.

[birdog1960]

I have never seen any practical definition of "common good" that ultimately wasn't common.

uncommonly common. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html. stay tuned for further updates.

[DC Tom]

uncommonly common. http://www.vatican.v...gaudium_en.html. stay tuned for further updates.

 

When did you become a papist?

[birdog1960]

When did you become a papist?

i'm a cradle Catholic. if the hstory of the world didn't get in the way, it wouldn't be so sexist. costantine ain't my favorite. but you look past the failings and look towards the future, things liook pretty bright right about now Edited November 30, 2013 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

i'm a cradle Catholic. if the hstory of the world didn't get in the way, it wouldn't be so sexist. costantine ain't my favorite. but you look past the failings and look towards the future, things liook pretty bright right about now

My lord in heaven. An optomistic socialist?

 

Now I have seen....a lot.

[Nanker]

i'm a cradle Catholic. if the hstory of the world didn't get in the way, it wouldn't be so sexist. costantine ain't my favorite. but you look past the failings and look towards the future, things liook pretty bright right about now

Take any solace in Béchara Boutros Rai's elevation?

[B-Man]

To those who (again) only see what they want to see..................

 

 

Pope Francis and the media: Missing the forest for a couple of trees

by Ed Morrisey

 

FTA:Based on the laments from some quarters — and the cheers of joy from others — I half-expected the Pontiff to have declared socialism a new economic doctrine of the Catholic Church. Instead, I found that Pope Francis not only hadn’t abandoned the legacy of his predecessor John Paul II, who fought communism and oppression in eastern Europe, but that on economics Francis didn’t say anything that the Catechism promulgated in John Paul II’s papacy doesn’t already teach.

 

In fact, Evangelii Gaudium has to be cherry-picked for the kind of reaction it received on economics. The essay talks at length about the need for the laity and the ordained to roll up their sleeves and get to work in the world and evangelize through action and not just proclamation. The entire Church should “smell like sheep,” Francis writes, rather than keeping their hands clean and pontificating from afar, pun intended.

 

Francis includes economics as an area where Catholics have to work to correct injustices, but Francis emphasizes the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity … just as John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the Church taught over the last three decades or more, as I note in my column for The Fiscal Times today:

 

Near the end of the exhortation,

Francis notes that the state has a responsibility to promote the common good through “the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.” The key concept of subsidiarity in Catholic doctrine rejects Marxism and command economies, teaching that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order”

(paragraph 1883).

It specifically rejects “all forms of collectivism” and “sets limits for state interventions

” (paragraph 1885). Subsidiarity and solidarity together promotes “the just hierarchy of values” (paragraph 1886), and opposes “[t]he inversion of means and ends” that “engenders unjust structures” that render the Christian life “difficult and almost impossible” (paragraph 1887). When that happens, the Church teaches that inner conversion will result in individual action to bring remedies to social institutions and unjust structures. “This is the path to charity,” the Catechism instructs, “that is, of the love of God and neighbor.”

Pope Francis uses a small part of Evangelii Gaudium to challenge Catholics not to invert the means over the ends, i.e., to fall so in love with economic philosophies as to become blinded to their pitfalls and negative outcomes. Far from demanding top-down control over economies, Francis is exhorting Catholics to act personally when they see injustices, and in that effort bear witness to the truth of the Gospel.

 

{snip}

 

The actual point of Evangelii Gaudium isn’t to debate economics anyway. It’s to motivate and propel Catholics into service to right a broad spectrum of injustices through personal action. Peter Ingemi points out that Pope Francis spends a lot more time highlighting those injustices and calling people to action than he does dealing in economics:

 

 

Much more at link: http://hotair.com/ar...ouple-of-trees/

[Koko78]

Sounds almost like he's going back the ancient adage from Aesop's fable; The Gods help those who help themselves.

 

Hercules and the Wagoner

 

A CARTER was driving a wagon along a country lane, when the wheels sank down deep into a rut. The rustic driver, stupefied and aghast, stood looking at the wagon, and did nothing but utter loud cries to Hercules to come and help him. Hercules, it is said, appeared and thus addressed him: "Put your shoulders to the wheels, my man. Goad on your bullocks, and never more pray to me for help, until you have done your best to help yourself, or depend upon it you will henceforth pray in vain."

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_aesop_hercules_wagoner.htm

[birdog1960]

To those who (again) only see what they want to see..................

 

 

Pope Francis and the media: Missing the forest for a couple of trees

by Ed Morrisey

 

FTA:Based on the laments from some quarters — and the cheers of joy from others — I half-expected the Pontiff to have declared socialism a new economic doctrine of the Catholic Church. Instead, I found that Pope Francis not only hadn’t abandoned the legacy of his predecessor John Paul II, who fought communism and oppression in eastern Europe, but that on economics Francis didn’t say anything that the Catechism promulgated in John Paul II’s papacy doesn’t already teach.

 

In fact, Evangelii Gaudium has to be cherry-picked for the kind of reaction it received on economics. The essay talks at length about the need for the laity and the ordained to roll up their sleeves and get to work in the world and evangelize through action and not just proclamation. The entire Church should “smell like sheep,” Francis writes, rather than keeping their hands clean and pontificating from afar, pun intended.

 

Francis includes economics as an area where Catholics have to work to correct injustices, but Francis emphasizes the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity … just as John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the Church taught over the last three decades or more, as I note in my column for The Fiscal Times today:

 

 

Near the end of the exhortation,

Francis notes that the state has a responsibility to promote the common good through “the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.” The key concept of subsidiarity in Catholic doctrine rejects Marxism and command economies, teaching that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order”

(paragraph 1883).

It specifically rejects “all forms of collectivism” and “sets limits for state interventions

” (paragraph 1885). Subsidiarity and solidarity together promotes “the just hierarchy of values” (paragraph 1886), and opposes “[t]he inversion of means and ends” that “engenders unjust structures” that render the Christian life “difficult and almost impossible” (paragraph 1887). When that happens, the Church teaches that inner conversion will result in individual action to bring remedies to social institutions and unjust structures. “This is the path to charity,” the Catechism instructs, “that is, of the love of God and neighbor.”

Pope Francis uses a small part of Evangelii Gaudium to challenge Catholics not to invert the means over the ends, i.e., to fall so in love with economic philosophies as to become blinded to their pitfalls and negative outcomes. Far from demanding top-down control over economies, Francis is exhorting Catholics to act personally when they see injustices, and in that effort bear witness to the truth of the Gospel.

 

{snip}

The actual point of Evangelii Gaudium isn’t to debate economics anyway. It’s to motivate and propel Catholics into service to right a broad spectrum of injustices through personal action. Peter Ingemi points out that Pope Francis spends a lot more time highlighting those injustices and calling people to action than he does dealing in economics:

 

 

Much more at link: http://hotair.com/ar...ouple-of-trees/

there are nearly 25 pages in chapter 2, section 1 that deal with challenges in today's world with concentration on economic issues. they're straightforward, transparent and included in the beginning 1/4th of the publication. the subsections dealing with economic challenges are clearly titled and very accessible. there's no cherry picking needed. yes, there are plenty of other subjects deemed worthy of discussion in this document. anyone familiar with such documents would expect this. but to argue that the economic points made are of lesser importance in the eyes of the author is an argument without merit or support. an attempt to confuse the issues by attempting to cite the catechism against this new document doesn't change the meaning of the words that francis put to paper here.

Edited December 4, 2013 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

time's person of the year http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/yuletide-gift-for-pope-francis-vast-popularity-among-catholics/.

[B-Man]

Pope Francis is Time’s Person of the Year.

 

Time had their correction of the year moment the other day when their online poll described him as having rejected Church dogma, which is untrue.

 

The media can’t seem to stop talking about him. Yes there is selective listening. Yes, there is commentary and debates on the misunderstandings. But there is some listening.

 

The same media outlets that a year ago considered the Catholic Church irrelevant are now listening. They’re getting it incredibly wrong, latching onto convenient sound bytes, loading them with their ideological biases. But they are paying attention. And with prayer and effort, miracles might just happen.

Edited December 11, 2013 by B-Man

[birdog1960]

Pope Francis is Time's Person of the Year.

 

Time had their correction of the year moment the other day when their online poll described him as having rejected Church dogma, which is untrue.

 

The media can't seem to stop talking about him. Yes there is selective listening. Yes, there is commentary and debates on the misunderstandings. But there is some listening.

 

The same media outlets that a year ago considered the Catholic Church irrelevant are now listening. They're getting it incredibly wrong, latching onto convenient sound bytes, loading them with their ideological biases. But they are paying attention. And with prayer and effort, miracles might just happen.

i certainly agree that some media outlets are getting it wrong. this one for instance: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/27/limbaugh-profoundly-disappointed-in-popes-attack-on-tyranny-of-unfettered-capitalism/

[Nanker]

i certainly agree that some media outlets are getting it wrong. this one for instance: http://dailycaller.c...red-capitalism/

i certainly agree that some media outlets are getting it wrong. this one for instance: http://dailycaller.c...red-capitalism/

You do realize of course that he actually believes in Jesus, that Jesus is the son of God.

He believes in the Holy Ghost, the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, that homosexuality is a moral corruption, that birth control is a sin.

 

Just checking on your understanding of your banboydom of your new economic icon.

 

Face it, you can't stand anything he stands for except his vow of poverty.

[birdog1960]

You do realize of course that he actually believes in Jesus, that Jesus is the son of God.

He believes in the Holy Ghost, the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, that homosexuality is a moral corruption, that birth control is a sin.

 

Just checking on your understanding of your banboydom of your new economic icon.

 

Face it, you can't stand anything he stands for except his vow of poverty.

yes, i realize all of that. although he recognizes that within the church and outside of it, others have different opinions. as it says in the "time" piece, he's attempting to balance mercy with judgement in a way not often seen. he's already stated that, while important (and while not softening the church stance), too much emphasis has been put on issues such as contraception and abortion at the expense of other important social issues. there's a worldwide papal poll for all Catholics that includes questions on sexual matters. while i don't take that as a pass to act as one pleases without regard to the churches teachings, i think it's an implicit recognition that not all practicing Catholics are on the same page on all issues. ultimately, he believes that everyone, including athiests, can be redeemed, as he simply has stated.

[OCinBuffalo]

The Pope doesn't think you'll get into heaven by giving your money to the government, and having them do good works on your behalf...

 

...either. In fact, the Bible is also pretty clear on the whole "good works" thing.

 

So....

 

Does that make this Pope anti-statist?

 

It certainly means he rejects all forms of Marxism. There's no debate there. The only "debate" would come from those either ignorant of Christianity in general, Catholicism, or Marxism.

 

I think there's entirely too much "analysis" going on, and not enough "thinking" on this issue.

 

Also, I think birdog is right:

 

The Democrats, and the Bible thumping clowns, have been over-using contraception and abortion as political wedge issues for at least 30 years. It's far past time to stop pretending that these 2 issuse are on the same level with "The Debt" and "China is declaring no-fly zones".

 

Those 2 issues are what Democrats/"Preachers" use to whore themselves out for votes/support/money, whenever they need them, and to prevent the adults from having an adult discussion about China and Entitlement Reform. Once the subject gets changed to those things, it will stay changed, and the whores can't have that.

 

So, why should it be a surprise that some whores are spending so much time talking about contraception and abortion?

Edited December 12, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

The Pope doesn't think you'll get into heaven by giving your money to the government, and having them do good works on your behalf...

 

...either. In fact, the Bible is also pretty clear on the whole "good works" thing.

 

So....

 

Does that make this Pope anti-statist?

 

It certainly means he rejects all forms of Marxism. There's no debate there. The only "debate" would come from those either ignorant of Christianity in general, Catholicism, or Marxism.

 

I think there's entirely too much "analysis" going on, and not enough "thinking" on this issue.

 

Also, I think birdog is right:

 

The Democrats, and the Bible thumping clowns, have been over-using contraception and abortion as political wedge issues for at least 30 years. It's far past time to stop pretending that these 2 issuse are on the same level with "The Debt" and "China is declaring no-fly zones".

 

Those 2 issues are what Democrats/"Preachers" use to whore themselves out for votes/support/money, whenever they need them, and to prevent the adults from having an adult discussion about China and Entitlement Reform. Once the subject gets changed to those things, it will stay changed, and the whores can't have that.

 

So, why should it be a surprise that some whores are spending so much time talking about contraception and abortion?

wow. just wow.to simplify, how bout looking at the secular component of the pope's message (yes, i know, theology is integral to his message but it's possible to distill it as he did to a degree when answering his atheist questioner). without the theology, his message in essence is that people should work at being good. defining good is relatively easy for some things: eg a good knife is one thast cuts well, stays sharp and is maneuverable. a good person? i think it's clear from his writing that he sees the ideal more closely represented by mother theresa than jamie dimon. and i think he's correct. the world would be a much better place with more people striving for that ideal. it's really pretty simple. you may not agree but it's a straightforward message.